This IS the Avid L2: Re: [Avid-L2] Better vs. More

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Re: [Avid-L2] Better vs. More

Do you honestly believe that?

I work 16 bit all the time but even on my grade 1 monitors with my nose on the screen I can't see the difference between 8 bit and 10 bit if I'm not going to grade heavily.

And that's the point - I only care about 4k deliverables as it opens the pipe to 4k production where the benefits are innumerable.

Mike

On 7 Nov, 2013, at 5:14 am, <tcurren@aol.com> wrote:

Mark writes:

"...and is more akin to satisfying your argument for not going beyond 8-bit, 18Mbps, MPEG-2, 4:2:0, HDTV compressed being the state of the art, not ever necessary to be bettered."

I have never said that. To be more precise I would love to be sending 10 bit 444 to the homes right now. That would be a huge improvement in quality, and we can all easily provide that without rebuilding entire infrastructures.

---In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, <cutandcover@...> wrote:

Terence,

Max resolution to send to the home. This is a great question, and is more akin to satisfying your argument for not going beyond 8-bit, 18Mbps, MPEG-2, 4:2:0, HDTV compressed being the state of the art, not ever necessary to be bettered. I would agree with you that the majority of viewers would not notice a huge benefit to raising the bar on bit rate, compression, codec, bit depth, or resolution. But some will, just like some can and will benefit from these advances in audio (bit depth, sampling rate, compression, etc.). So it's an ongoing issue, and consumer manufacturers seem to be ignoring many of the details in favor of just having a number that's "more" to sell.

The fundamental difference here is that I believe we become more capable of distinguishing fine details when we are routinely exposed to fine details. Until I worked in a major music recording studio, recording to 2" multitrack and 1/2" analog 2-track masters, I never heard the fidelity of the source. Upon repeated exposure to this, I became addicted, and suddenly even my home CDs paled in comparison. So I strive for the work of great mastering engineers who work wonders in preserving as much detail as they can from the original master tapes in the translation to a consumer product (CD, LP, SACD, PCM file, DSD file, Blu-ray audio ,etc.). Because once I could hear it, then I could always hear it. When DVD first arrived, I looked on in the stores at the demos and thought it was a step down. Sure the benefits of repeated playback with zero degradation are appealing, but it didn't seem like the step up it should have been (over Laserdisc and VHS). Then came HD, and Blu-ray, and oh yes, this difference was immediate. Now I threw most of my DVDs away because if I could get the same film in HD resolution and lower compression, it was worth it. We need exposure to the new state of the art in quality to make those judgements, and I believe they are not always quantifiable by brute force scientific method. We're judging something subjective, which is "can you tell which is better". I would like the option.

My other argument is a personal one that has born fruit in my own life. I know that if I am able to perceive the art in as pure a form as possible, to have that chance, preserves the potential for my experience. And often, I notice that the potential is realized the higher up the quality scale I go. Some of my greatest experiences in cinema have been while watching 70mm projection. Some of my greatest experiences in music have been when listening to 30ips 1/2" analog masters, and subsequently, great vinyl pressings and DSD. That's not saying that a great experience can't be had with lower quality material. But if I can get to my zone easier/faster with a more refined source, you bet I will strive for that. Will 4K satisfy me? I don't know. But I do know that it's possible that it will, on some level. Bottom line is that I'm not willing to put a cap on quality. Nothing will ever be as good as the next thing, and I will always want the next thing, because it might get me there.

I can't answer the questions, because I'm an idealist. For a realist, I'd say each person has to answer them on the effort/expenditure/result scale. But I know that I won't abide blanket assumptions that no one can benefit from higher quality. Because (yes, subjectively) personally, I have, and believe that I will in the future. It's not based on assumptions, it's based on actual, identifiable experiences, and those exact experiences happen to be touchstones for core beliefs and reasons for believing that this is a great life.

You want a number, a finish line so that you can tell exactly when to pull the trigger on upgrading and how much it's gonna cost. Good luck. It'll never end. And when we get to the end of 2D quality deliverables, we'll have to do holograms, or astral projections, or something else I can't even imagine.

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:51 PM, <tcurren@...> wrote:

Okay Mark,

Then I will repeat my major question which no one has answered to date. What is the maximum resolution we want to send to the home? I just want a real target.

Is it the maximum the human eye can resolve?

Is it the maximum we can ever record from a camera?

Is it the maximum resolution of the entire universe?

Just give a me a number. I for one believe we are there already for the typical home viewer, but I reserve the right to be wrong. But without a target, we are just feeding into the manufacturers equipment cycle model.

---In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, <cutandcover@...> wrote:

In any of my arguments, did I ever say I wasn't wishing for better dynamic range, color gamut, bit depth, or compression technology? No, I did not. It is definitely not "all about resolution", another thing which I never said. I don't think anyone in this (or any of the other innumerable) threads has ever said that.

I want better quality, and it means all of those things. To eliminate one of those improvements out of hand simply because the consumer (in a home, on a TV) might not benefit is, in my view, absurd.

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:27 PM, David Ross <speckydave@...> wrote:

If you want better quality, then shouldn't you be wishing for things like better dynamic range, colour gamut, bit depth and compression technology?
If it's all about resolution, then a cheap 18 megapixel camera would give you better picture quality than an old 10 megapixel SLR with Nikon glass, right?

There are quite a few people on this list (myself included) who would like to see quality improvements in every aspect of their post workflow. Speaking for myself, (and I suspect I'm not alone) resolution is not at the top of the priority list.

D.

On 6 November 2013 17:56, Mark Spano <cutandcover@...> wrote:

Arguing against that, to me, is arguing against quality, and I prefer quality.